126 réponses à ce sujet

[Bourne Endeavor]

Don't know about retcons in ME2 (though to be true i played it before ME1) but suggesting that it did not advance the plot is wrong. In the end of ME2 you have 

1) access to reaper tech on unimaginable scale.   

2) shadow broker in your pocket

3) squad of experienced and talented individuals (and Geth).

 

ME3 used it all for silly numbers. It could have used it for plot continuation. You know,finding something important in collectors base instead of ,say,in Mars archives. Et ctr. Blaiming prequel for choices made by sequel writers is rediculous,frankly.  

 

1) Which serves no actual purpose in ME3. In fact, it was nonsensical idiocy in ME2 to begin with.

2) Whose role is ironically overshadowed by Specialist Traynor.

3) Who are so fundamentally pointless you could skip ME2 entirely and nothing changes in ME3. 

 

Mass Effect 2 was one long side mission that is ignored to the point of being insulting, primarily because you do not advance a damn thing. In fact, seeing the Reapers arrive in six months regardless - and it would have taken significantly longer to finalize the Human Reaper - the whole 'plot' is arguably retconned. By the conclusion of ME2, we still have no means of defeating the Reapers, all of the major conflicts remain unresolved, the Council still doesn't believe us and the Galaxy is wholly unprepared for the invasion. Basically, right where ME1 left off, but with some token infantry when it's a galactic war we're fighting and Cerberus.

 

Now if we found the Crucible in ME2 or the Arrival DLC was ME2's actual plot and we delayed the Reapers for years, allowing the galaxy some time for preparation. That would have advanced the plot. Alternatively, if the game had largely focused on the Geth/Quarian conflict, it would not feel so shoehorned into ME3 and again, advanced something. While ME3 has an assortment of narrative flaws, ME2 has just as many, if not more. 

[BioWareM0d13]

By contrast I also think gamers or fanboys can be very harsh in their criticisms, I remember all the negative fan reviews on Amazon and Metacritic after ME3 came out. Despite not liking ME3 I would never mark or review it unfairly.

 

Fans in general tend to overreact. Very few ever give a balanced review for games they played. It is either a 10 and the best game ever or a 1 and the worst game of all time. With fan reviews I always discard both the most glowing reviews and those that give the product the lowest possible rating. You get a clearer picture of how good or bad the product is by focusing on more balanced reviews that fall between those two extremes. That also means ignoring most fan reviews.

[jstme]

1) Which serves no actual purpose in ME3. In fact, it was nonsensical idiocy in ME2 to begin with.

2) Whose role is ironically overshadowed by Specialist Traynor.

3) Who are so fundamentally pointless you could skip ME2 entirely and nothing changes in ME3. 

 

Mass Effect 2 was one long side mission that is ignored to the point of being insulting, primarily because you do not advance a damn thing. In fact, seeing the Reapers arrive in six months regardless - and it would have taken significantly longer to finalize the Human Reaper - the whole 'plot' is arguably retconned. By the conclusion of ME2, we still have no means of defeating the Reapers, all of the major conflicts remain unresolved, the Council still doesn't believe us and the Galaxy is wholly unprepared for the invasion. Basically, right where ME1 left off, but with some token infantry when it's a galactic war we're fighting and Cerberus.

 

Now if we found the Crucible in ME2 or the Arrival DLC was ME2's actual plot and we delayed the Reapers for years, allowing the galaxy some time for preparation. That would have advanced the plot. Alternatively, if the game had largely focused on the Geth/Quarian conflict, it would not feel so shoehorned into ME3 and again, advanced something. While ME3 has an assortment of narrative flaws, ME2 has just as many, if not more. 

1) Because ,and listen to this carefully, ME3 writers decided to make ME2 pointless. Not ME2 writers. ME3 writers. As in - people that wrote ME3. Which was written after ME2. Meaning that ME2 irrelevance is fault of ME3 writers and ME3 writers alone.

As for idiocy or not - well, ME3 has synthesis. Few things in Sci Fi can beat it as far as idiocy levels are concerned. And critics liked ME3.  

2) See point 1.

3) See point 1.

Finding Reaper "baby"ship and Collector's base could have be immense jump points for the story. Not to mention ME2 squad details. 

Just try to imagine ,what works better - finding hints about Catalyst from databases and transmission logs on Collector base or all the V for Vendetta ME3 sleezy stuff.

Also compare -  throwing all the Alliance resources during war for extermination in trying to build device that possibly maybe probably does something ,erm, bad to reapers.Or not.Cause nobody really knows. Oh,and all that according to the plans suddenly out of the blue discovered on Mars out of all places.

Or - reverse engineering reaper tech and collector tech,with Geth and Quarian and EDI help, to design something that will work as intended by designers and only needs to

 be fetched few components,resources and scientists from here and there by delivery boy Shepard,according to Shadow Broker tips 

 to be delivered to Point C and plugged into USB port 3 under enemy fire by the above mentioned. 

In summary - ME3 killed the trilogy 

[dreamgazer]

Hah. No, ME2 was pointless because ME2 was pointless.

[Iakus]

1) Because ,and listen to this carefully, ME3 writers decided to make ME2 pointless. Not ME2 writers. ME3 writers. As in - people that wrote ME3. Which was written after ME2. Meaning that ME2 irrelevance is fault of ME3 writers and ME3 writers alone.

As for idiocy or not - well, ME3 has synthesis. Few things in Sci Fi can beat it as far as idiocy levels are concerned. And critics liked ME3.  

 

Mass Effect killed Mass Effect.  ME3, ME2, and even ME1 were to blame. 

 

Why?  Because no one had a freaking clue where they were taking the story, and were wholly unprepared for making choices actually matter across games.  Or having an end game involved in dealing with the Reapers.  Or even a motive for them. 

 

It wasn't so obvious in ME1 because it was the first in the series.  but ME2 was so totally disconnected from ME1, and later ME3 that it feels lke a DLC bundle.  Do missions with these cool, but in the end irrelevant, characters in a storyline that is similarly irrelevant.

 

Then when it comes time to wrap things up in ME3, there are so many constraints thanks to choices that were made with no planning on how they are supposed to matter that we end up with the complete mess that is ME, with choices from both games being sidelined or trivialized.  ANd the player's avatar for five years gets hijacked by the writers because allowing player agency would somehow interfere with the "cinematic experience"

 

So no, I don't think players were "too whiny"  I think Bioware built up people's expectations with wild and innacurrate promises and then totally failed to meet them.  I think reviewers judged the game more on shooter mechanics than story (and likely played little beyond the demo anyway)

[dreamgazer]

Huh. I still had plenty of player agency, for all three of my Shepards of varying alignments.

[Bourne Endeavor]

1) Because ,and listen to this carefully, ME3 writers decided to make ME2 pointless. Not ME2 writers. ME3 writers. As in - people that wrote ME3. Which was written after ME2. Meaning that ME2 irrelevance is fault of ME3 writers and ME3 writers alone.

As for idiocy or not - well, ME3 has synthesis. Few things in Sci Fi can beat it as far as idiocy levels are concerned. And critics liked ME3.  

2) See point 1.

3) See point 1.

Finding Reaper "baby"ship and Collector's base could have be immense jump points for the story. Not to mention ME2 squad details. 

Just try to imagine ,what works better - finding hints about Catalyst from databases and transmission logs on Collector base or all the V for Vendetta ME3 sleezy stuff.

Also compare -  throwing all the Alliance resources during war for extermination in trying to build device that possibly maybe probably does something ,erm, bad to reapers.Or not.Cause nobody really knows. Oh,and all that according to the plans suddenly out of the blue discovered on Mars out of all places.

Or - reverse engineering reaper tech and collector tech,with Geth and Quarian and EDI help, to design something that will work as intended by designers and only needs to

 be fetched few components,resources and scientists from here and there by delivery boy Shepard,according to Shadow Broker tips 

 to be delivered to Point C and plugged into USB port 3 under enemy fire by the above mentioned. 

In summary - ME3 killed the trilogy 

 

You do realize this is a criticism of Mass Effect 2, yes? If we found hints regarding the Catalyst then it would constitute foreshadowing - an aspect severely lacking this trilogy as a whole. That is the whole problem. ME2 never had anything that advanced the narrative, except for Mordin's loyalty mission. The Human Reaper was horribly nonsensical and Cerberus' motivations as a whole were poorly justified and frequently handwaved. 

 

That isn't to say Mass Effect 3 did not contribute to lack of a cohesive flow, but you are far too readily excusing ME2. Unfortunately, Iakus is correct. Bioware's utter lack of an outline for the trilogy proved the most damning because they essentially made up things as they went, many that fall under the "it sounded cool at the time" dichotomy. Now they still could have crafted a better story than they did, but so much potential was lost. For instance, ME1 could have foreshadowed Cerberus and TIM, meaning their introduction in ME2 would have felt like a payoff in lieu of a sudden pull to port.  

[CptFalconPunch]

1) Because ,and listen to this carefully, ME3 writers decided to make ME2 pointless. Not ME2 writers. ME3 writers. As in - people that wrote ME3. Which was written after ME2. Meaning that ME2 irrelevance is fault of ME3 writers and ME3 writers alone.

As for idiocy or not - well, ME3 has synthesis. Few things in Sci Fi can beat it as far as idiocy levels are concerned. And critics liked ME3.  

2) See point 1.

3) See point 1.

Finding Reaper "baby"ship and Collector's base could have be immense jump points for the story. Not to mention ME2 squad details. 

Just try to imagine ,what works better - finding hints about Catalyst from databases and transmission logs on Collector base or all the V for Vendetta ME3 sleezy stuff.

Also compare -  throwing all the Alliance resources during war for extermination in trying to build device that possibly maybe probably does something ,erm, bad to reapers.Or not.Cause nobody really knows. Oh,and all that according to the plans suddenly out of the blue discovered on Mars out of all places.

Or - reverse engineering reaper tech and collector tech,with Geth and Quarian and EDI help, to design something that will work as intended by designers and only needs to

 be fetched few components,resources and scientists from here and there by delivery boy Shepard,according to Shadow Broker tips 

 to be delivered to Point C and plugged into USB port 3 under enemy fire by the above mentioned. 

In summary - ME3 killed the trilogy 

 

Don't let your love of ME2 blind you. ME2 was utterly pointless and garbage plot wise. It seriously hampered the trilogy. The most they could do with ME2 is make it "relevant" but that doesn't change the fact that it was pointless. 

Especially since they give you the choice to destroy the base, meaning it couldn't influence the entire storyline and branch the plot in ME3.

 

In short, like dreamgazer said, ME2 is pointless because ME2 is pointless.

 

EDIT: yes, players are whiny and critics are retards.

 

Players can only post misdirected notions based on their emotional reactions.

Critics point out all the superificial features of the game and put a number on to it.

 

Both suck, but both are needed :/

[sveners]

Even giving the ending more weight than any other 10 minute segment of the game, we're still talking about a fraction of the overall content. And the ending wasn't all bad, without any redeeming qualities. The battle scenes were epic. The soundtrack is awesome, and the sequence where "An End, Once and For All" is playing is more poignant than any game has a right to be. There's just a bunch of plotholes, and a lack of variety and player control over the endings, which is contrary to the theme of the series (and statements by Bioware about the conclusion of the trilogy). And honestly, I feel like there are just as many people who dislike the ending simply because Shepard (and others) dies as there are that dislike it because of the problems with the story- which is just stupid (IMO, at least).

 

And in any case, regarding a game which, everything else considered, was about as good as any video game can be, and which has become something of a gold standard for precisely that reason, as bad or a failure overall simply because there were problems with the ending can hardly be anything other than an overreaction. 

 

I get that you feel this way, I really do. We are all different though.

 

When the last 10 minutes makes you regret playing the entire trilogy, makes a 5 year journey feel worthless, or just makes me go "what's the point?" when considering a replay of the trilogy, then I think overreaction is the wrong word. It was a reaction, certainly. In my mind, a very fair one. 

 

Emotions are not rational. I didn't choose to be disappointed/heartbroken, Nor can I simply choose to be at peace with the ending. It doesn't work that way. It really makes me a bit.... upset.. when people say the only reason some are still disappointed is because they choose to be.

[Sion1138]

Hah. No, ME2 was pointless because ME2 was pointless.

 

Didn't have to be. They chose to not do anything with it.

 

Could have used the technology to counteract indoctrination, stop Reaper husks, whatever basically, which could have involved characters like Mordin and Legion.

 

Could have made something out of that weapon that destroyed the Reaper.

 

It wasn't all useless, something could have been done with it.

[dreamgazer]

Didn't have to be. They chose to not do anything with it.

 

There was little they could do with it, given the tangential nature of the Collector conflict and the 50/50 possibility with the base. 

 

And it's not like they avoided it entirely, after all. The nonsense of "absorb the essence of a species" was elaborated upon, they did quite a bit with the developments around the genophage and the quarian/geth conflict, and the ME2 cast members do make appearances---some rather good and others iffy, about like ME2's.

[Sion1138]

There was little they could do with it, given the tangential nature of the Collector conflict and the 50/50 possibility with the base. 

 

And it's not like they avoided it entirely, after all. The nonsense of "absorb the essence of a species" was elaborated upon, they did quite a bit with the developments around the genophage and the quarian/geth conflict, and the ME2 cast members do make appearances---some rather good and others iffy, about like ME2's.

 

I don't know where you're coming from. I can think of a dozen different ways in which the material from ME2 could have been used to carry the plot.

 

There's always a way.

 

And it's not 50/50, Cerberus gets the technology and the Reaper thing anyway.

[dreamgazer]

I don't know where you're coming from. I can think of a dozen different ways in which the material from ME2 could have been used to carry the plot.

 
A dozen, huh?  How so?
 

And it's not 50/50, Cerberus gets the technology and the Reaper thing anyway.

Right, just like the council denies the Reaper threat no matter the decision at the end of ME1.

At least it makes sense that Cerberus would still try and salvage the tech and get indoctrinated in the process, given their track record.

[Iakus]

Even giving the ending more weight than any other 10 minute segment of the game, we're still talking about a fraction of the overall content. And the ending wasn't all bad, without any redeeming qualities. The battle scenes were epic. The soundtrack is awesome, and the sequence where "An End, Once and For All" is playing is more poignant than any game has a right to be. There's just a bunch of plotholes, and a lack of variety and player control over the endings, which is contrary to the theme of the series (and statements by Bioware about the conclusion of the trilogy). And honestly, I feel like there are just as many people who dislike the ending simply because Shepard (and others) dies as there are that dislike it because of the problems with the story- which is just stupid (IMO, at least).

 

And in any case, regarding a game which, everything else considered, was about as good as any video game can be, and which has become something of a gold standard for precisely that reason, as bad or a failure overall simply because there were problems with the ending can hardly be anything other than an overreaction. 

 

Yes, a big chunk of the dissatisfied people are likely so due to Shepard dying.  But you know what?  That's a part of the problem story-wise.  It's simply the biggest and most egregious example of how railroaded the story is.  In a story full of problems, it's simply the most blatant of them.

 

And in a narrative-based game, where the player supposedly has control, such hijacking of the story is simply not acceptable.  This is not supposed to be just another shooter, where the story is just the framework between bouts of pwning Reapers or Cerberus.  Game narrative needs to be held to a higher standard tan "But the feelz!" especially if it wants to be taken seriously as an art form.

 

If a game causes this powerful a negative reaction, something went terribly, terribly wrong.

[Iakus]

 
Right, just like the council denies the Reaper threat no matter the decision at the end of ME1.
 

Doubly funny since the Council thanks Shepard for saving them "From Saren and the Reapers" at the end of ME1

 

 

At least it makes sense that Cerberus would still try and salvage the tech and get indoctrinated in the process, given their track record.

 

Makes less sense that the get the exact same tech no matter what.  Makes that decision in ME2 feel kinda futile

[Sion1138]

 
A dozen, huh?  How so?

 

Ballpark figure.

 

Right, just like the council denies the Reaper threat no matter the decision at the end of ME1.

At least it makes sense that Cerberus would still try and salvage the tech and get indoctrinated in the process, given their track record.

 

 

Right, so it could have been used regardless of the choice at the end of ME2, only with slight permutations.

 

For example, say that part of the solution to defeating the Reapers was to be found on the base. If you destroyed it, you would have to either cooperate with Cerberus or get it from them.

 

Perhaps it's some kind of virus which interferes with their communication protocols.

 

Combine that with various weapons based on the design of the mass accellerator from Klendagon and contributions by characters like Mordin who perhaps expands on his Collector countermeasure, and Legion who perhaps provides additional insight into old machine code and whatnot.

 

You'd have all you need right there. It would all follow from established lore and story and all the characters would be directly involved.

[dreamgazer]

Makes less sense that the get the exact same tech no matter what.  Makes that decision in ME2 feel kinda futile

 
At least you didn't sell the soul of your species in the process, I guess. 
 
Shame to think about all the potential colonists lost in that explosion, too.
 
 

Right, so it could have been used regardless of the choice at the end of ME2, only with slight permutations.

Which is what happens in ME3, in low-EMS variations.
 

For example, say that part of the solution to defeating the Reapers was to be found on the base. If you destroyed it, you would have to either cooperate with Cerberus or get it from them.

That's a pretty broad difference, especially given their ideological clashes with the rest of the galactic community. How would you realistically execute that?
 

Perhaps it's some kind of virus which interferes with their communication protocols.

So ... Independence Day. Hard to stomach there, hard to stomach here. The Reapers have gotta have an anti-virus scanner, after all.   
 

Combine that with various weapons based on the design of the mass accellerator from Klendagon and contributions by characters like Mordin who perhaps expands on his Collector countermeasure, and Legion who perhaps provides additional insight into old machine code and whatnot.

Interaction with Legion (and the geth) is 100% optional after the Derelict Reaper, assuming Legion could even offer significant information about how the Reapers internally operate.  Mordin's countermeasure? Eh, I suppose it could be fudged into some kind of defensive, but the Reaper armada is vastly more advanced and powerful than the Collectors. 
 

You'd have all you need right there.

If it's that simple, why haven't previous civilizations done this exact same thing before?  As you said, other civilizations had mass accelerators, various advanced technology, and scientists that were equally, if not more, intelligent than Mordin.

[KaiserShep]

Makes less sense that the get the exact same tech no matter what.  Makes that decision in ME2 feel kinda futile

 

Well, this is really the problem with including major, world-changing decisions in first and middle chapters in a series.

 

Imagine if Shepard was actually given a decision that would determine the fate of the entire geth race in ME2. This creates a serious problem if the writers wanted to include a lot of geth-related content in the third game, reaching some kind of big finale, and they would either have to retcon the hell out of this decision (Surprise! There were holdouts hiding in the crab nebula all along!) or somehow lock out an entire story arc, which effectively rubs out possibly hours of gameplay for certain players, and reduces the variety of enemies to battle (multiplayer would all but guarantee the former to happen). We saw what happened with the rachni.

 

This is something I think Dragon Age did well about, though I'm curious as to what's in store for Inquisition. I assume that despite the variance in the game's ending, its main plot will only have one basic conclusion, and it will have smaller details that don't necessarily need to be meaningful in the story of the following game, should the developers actually make more. This is a problem I have with ME3's ending. Having such huge, galaxy-altering endings make the prospect of going forward all the more problematic. The reapers should've been Space Blight. It simply dies and the galaxy moves on, with certain factions suffering greater or fewer losses, and of course a nice burn everything alternative, kinda like how Shepard can die in the Suicide Mission.

[q5tyhj]

 

When the last 10 minutes makes you regret playing the entire trilogy, makes a 5 year journey feel worthless, or just makes me go "what's the point?" when considering a replay of the trilogy, then I think overreaction is the wrong word. 

Really?

 

I can't think of a single word that would be more appropriate for this than "overreaction". Made you regret playing the entire trilogy? That's crazy. That's like saying, for instance, the last track on Dark Side of the Moon made you regret ever listening to Pink Floyd. The ending, however bad it was (and it wasn't as bad as many make it out to be, but that's another can of worms), didn't somehow remove or erase the parts of the game that made you fall in love with the trilogy. I understand that you acknowledged that an emotional reaction like this isn't necessarily rational or reasonable, but holy smokes... If this is actually true, I can't think of much else to say other than "I'm sorry". 

[q5tyhj]

Yes, a big chunk of the dissatisfied people are likely so due to Shepard dying.  

 

Well, but this means that much of the criticism of the ending is disingenuous, and overblown. For many people, the reasons given (the lack of variety/choice, the plotholes, etc) are not the real reasons why they didn't like the ending. They didn't like it because they were sad that Shepard died. And that the protagonist died when you didn't want them to is a far more trivial complaint than that the story stopped making sense. 

 

 

If a game causes this powerful a negative reaction, something went terribly, terribly wrong.

 

Really? Didn't seem like much of a problem- how were ME3's sale numbers? Not too shabby? And the size of the outcry was probably more of a function of how devoted the ME fan base is to the product than how problematic the ending was in any objective sense. Hardcore fans are really attached, and they tend to be waaaaaay more vocal when they have complaints.

[Iakus]

 

Well, but this means that much of the criticism of the ending is disingenuous, and overblown. For many people, the reasons given (the lack of variety/choice, the plotholes, etc) are not the real reasons why they didn't like the ending. They didn't like it because they were sad that Shepard died. And that the protagonist died when you didn't want them to is a far more trivial complaint than that the story stopped making sense. 

 

 

Or the lack of choice and plotholes leading up to Shepard's death made the players feel railroaded and not in control of their own avatar.  

 

Which is not how a choice-based role playing game is supposed to work.

 

There are other games out there with forced-tragic outcomes.  The thing is, most of those don't pretend the player has a say in the matter.

 

Really? Didn't seem like much of a problem- how were ME3's sale numbers? Not too shabby? And the size of the outcry was probably more of a function of how devoted the ME fan base is to the product than how problematic the ending was in any objective sense. Hardcore fans are really attached, and they tend to be waaaaaay more vocal when they have complaints.

 

 

Much of ME3's sales were from preorders and Day 1 purchases.  After the ending outcry started, there were massive numbers of returns and exchanges.  Heck even Amazon was accepting returns and Origin exchanges, the outcry was so bad.

 

EC, as much as anything, was an attempt to stop the flow, to get people to hold on to their copies so stores will actually stock the next Bioware game.  The backlash was not overblown, it was freaking unprecedented.

[Iakus]

Really?

 

I can't think of a single word that would be more appropriate for this than "overreaction". Made you regret playing the entire trilogy? That's crazy. That's like saying, for instance, the last track on Dark Side of the Moon made you regret ever listening to Pink Floyd. The ending, however bad it was (and it wasn't as bad as many make it out to be, but that's another can of worms), didn't somehow remove or erase the parts of the game that made you fall in love with the trilogy. I understand that you acknowledged that an emotional reaction like this isn't necessarily rational or reasonable, but holy smokes... If this is actually true, I can't think of much else to say other than "I'm sorry". 

 

Yes it did.

 

I feel exactly the same as sveners described.  I wish I had never gotten into the Mass Effect trilogy in the first place.  This is not a unique reaction, no matter how much you may try to downplay it.

[dreamgazer]

Much of ME3's sales were from preorders and Day 1 purchases.  After the ending outcry started, there were massive numbers of returns and exchanges.  Heck even Amazon was accepting returns and Origin exchanges, the outcry was so bad.

 

How do you explain the steady sales since the game's release, then?

 

The number of returns wasn't "massive", either, and Amazon's willing to accept returns on just about anything under specific circumstances. 

[dreamgazer]

I wish I had never gotten into the Mass Effect trilogy in the first place.  This is not a unique reaction, no matter how much you may try to downplay it.

 

It's not common, iakus.

[jros83]

Just want to throw my support behind those who say both sides have issues.

Paid critics/critics in the employ of a for profit concern are always going to be bias in one direction or another. you really can't take a professional critique at face value. however, amateur reviews by a playerbase can not be taken at face value either. further, I dare say that even though I condemn both parties, the playerbase reviews in my opinion are less valid than the professional ones.

 

it causes real problems. I wanted to buy Alpha Protocol a while back, because the genre and the plot were right up my alley, but I didn't, because 90% of the customer reviews said it was terrible insofar as bad coding and glitches and whatnot, while the marketing and professional critics built it up as something to be desired. The quandary of Spend Money then Hate it vs. Want It but Resist It. While it's possible that I may have saved myself same cash on something that was broke, it's equally possible I am missing out on something that I would love.